關於 present continuous future ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

LỘ TRÌNH HỌC IELTS MỤC TIÊU 6.5 CHO NGƯỜI MỚI BẮT ĐẦU
Thay bằng việc phải trả lời những câu hỏi mẩu lẻ mỗi khi học viên hỏi về khoá IELTS Online, cô gửi đến các bạn 1 lộ trình siêu tinh gọn và tiết kiệm cho những người mới bắt đầu học IELTS và đặt mục tiêu IELTS 6.5 hoặc cao hơn nhé! Nếu thấy bài chia sẻ hữu ích, bạn đừng quên SHARE để lan toả kiến thức nhé!

Chặng 1️⃣: KHỞI ĐỘNG
Mục tiêu: Xây dựng nền tảng tiếng Anh tốt
Thời gian: 3-4 tháng cực chăm chỉ. Đều đặn 2-3 tiếng/
Phương pháp:
💦 Nâng cao ngữ pháp
Sử dụng cuốn Grammar in Use vì cuốn sách ở trình độ khá Basic, phù hợp với những bạn mới bắt đầu. Nhược điểm của cuốn sách là hơi bị rườm rà và chia nhỏ kiến thức, chưa kể đến việc xuất hiện rất nhiều kiến thức không quan trọng trong bài thi IELTS. Vậy nên, các bạn hãy chỉ chú ý đến những bài sau:
Unit 1-4: Present Simple + Continuous
Unit 21 + 23: Future Simple
Unit 5: Past Simple
Unit 7 + 8: Present Perfect
Unit 26: Can, could + be (able) to
Unit 31: Have to + must
Unit 42: Passive
Unit 53-58: To V or V-ing
Unit 72 + 73: a/an/the
Unit 82-84 + 90-91: Pronouns + determiners
Unit 98 – 101 + 105 + 108: Adjectives + Adverbs
Hoặc 1 sự lựa chọn đơn giản hơn rất nhiều với học viên IELTS Online —> Bám sát theo 11 bài học Ngữ pháp trong khoá học IELTS 4 kỹ năng: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic

💦 Nâng cao khả năng nghe
Sử dụng trang https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic, và thực hiện các bài nghe lần lượt theo dạng câu hỏi. Các bài học đều bao gồm lý thuyết về dạng câu hỏi & bài thực hành đã được xếp lần lượt từ dễ đến khó
Nghe, trả lời câu hỏi tương ứng bên dưới
Check phần Quiz Script và đọc hiểu, note từ mới (nếu có)
Làm các bài Post - Listening exercises, để cải thiện cả grammar và speaking
Một sự lựa chọn khác tương ứng là cuốn sách Hướng dẫn học IELTS Listening cho người mới bắt đầu: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-hoc-ielts-listening

💦 Nâng cao khả năng đọc
Sử dụng trang https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic. Trang này cũng đã xếp sẵn bài thực hành theo dạng câu hỏi và cũng luôn có những lý thuyết hướng dẫn cách làm bài nên rất okie khi ta mới bắt đầu học
Mỗi ngày chỉ cần làm 1-3 bài đọc, tuy nhiên đọc dịch cẩn thận và nhớ tra từ mới.
Hoặc sự lựa chọn khác là sử dụng sách Hướng dẫn học IELTS Reading cho người mới bắt đầu: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-hoc-ielts-reading

💦 Nâng cao phát âm
Bám theo chuỗi video của thầy Dan Hauer để chỉnh là IPA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qejo8-epylk&list=PL7YqrWXed1abz3FwdKMZEwclWMZ2cMHio

💦 Nâng cao từ vựng
Học chính những từ vựng mới gặp phải trong quá trình nghe đọc và học Grammar. Nên có một cuốn sổ, ghi hết từ mới ra và review lại mỗi ngày. Nên thực hành đặt câu với các từ mới, dựa trên các điểm grammar đã học.

Chặng 2️⃣: VƯỢT CHƯỚNG NGẠI VẬT
Mục tiêu: Tìm hiểu thông tin chi tiết, đầy đủ, kỹ càng cho bài thi IELTS
Thời gian: ~3 tháng cực chăm chỉ. Đều đặn 2-3 tiếng/ngày
Nếu các bạn nào đã có nền tiếng Anh dạng Upper-intermediate, giai đoạn này hoặc rất nhanh
Phương pháp:

💦 Tìm hiểu về format của bài thi IELTS
Giống như đi tán gái vậy, để làm được bài thi tốt, trước tiên bạn cần hiểu thật rõ ràng về cấu trúc bài thi IELTS đã. Nó có những phần gì, các dạng câu hỏi ra sao, thời gian, tiêu chí chấm điểm như thế nào ....

💦💦Cho kỹ năng Listening và Reading
Nếu bạn chưa thực hành hết các bài thực hành trong khoá online/ sách được đề cập ở chặng 1, đây là lúc bạn hoàn thành nó!
Sau đó, bạn có thể bước thêm 1 bước ngắn nữa, cụ thể:
- Listening thì thực hành với các bài Section 1 2 trong các cuốn Cam
- Reading thì đọc các bài passage 1 2 trong các cuốn Cam
Những phần này dễ thở hơn, và cũng là phần rất quan trọng để đạt aim 6.5. Ví dụ như 6.5 Listening tương ứng với 26-29 câu trả lời đúng, thì với Section 1-2 thì bạn phải đúng khoảng 15-18 câu rồi thì mới đủ sức + mới nên bước sang phần Section 3 4
Rất quan trọng trong giai đoạn này là CHẤT, không phải LƯỢNG. Đã thực hành bài nào phải nghe/ đọc kỹ càng, dịch bài, học từ mới chăm chỉ

💦💦 Cho kỹ năng Writing
Kỹ năng này thực sự khó >> nếu tốt nhất bạn nên tham gia 1 khoá học on hoặc off hoặc guide 1-1, tuỳ kinh tế và thời gian mình có. Nếu có ý thức tốt thì tất cả những kiến thức mình dạy trong khoá học https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic cùng với quyền lợi chữa bài là quá đủ & tiết kiệm cho bạn.

💖 Với Writing task 1 thì có một số điểm highlight như sau:
- Tìm hiểu cấu trúc câu mô tả xu hướng https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic/lessons/2-mo-ta-xu-huong-trong-writing-task-1?fbclid=IwAR2gpMGEMiQt-GcTdWM_eHkppTAePG38stfn6d6x7K4GfUk0-vwjBJ4wYqg
- Sau đó là cấu trúc câu so sánh facebook.com/286585161523028/posts/1814502128731316/
- Khi đã nhớ cấu trúc, thuộc từ vựng hai phần trên, bạn chuyển sang cách làm dạng dynamic charts (Có sự thay đổi theo thời gian)
- Và sau đó là cách làm dạng static charts (Không có sự thay đổi theo thời gian)
- Tiếp theo, đọc hai dạng ít thi hơn là Map https://m.me/286585161523028?ref=vietmap
- Và cuối cùng và cách viết Process https://m.me/286585161523028?ref=Vietprocess
- Bước cuối cùng, ôn luyện tổng hợp có thể bám sát các đề thi thật và bài mẫu
- Mục tiêu: Trước khi bước vào phòng thi, đọc at least 20 bài mẫu và note cách diễn đạt, cách làm bài, từ vựng ngữ pháp hay, rồi làm at least 10 đề thi là ok. Anw bắt buộc cần có người chữa bài cho mình

💖 Với Writing task 2
- Cứ bắt đầu bằng việc đọc 1 loạt từ vựng và ý tưởng theo chủ đề. Từ vựng vừa lên, ý tưởng còn phong phú >> Như thế mới viết được bài.
Nguồn sử dụng: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-luyen-ielts-vocabulary
- Sau đó học thật kỹ cho mình kỹ năng Paraphrasing và thực hành nhiều, cực quan trọng. Trong khó học online cũng có hướng dẫn luôn rồi bạn nhé
- Tiếp theo, thực hành viết theo đoạn ngắn thôi (tương ứng với một đoạn body khoảng 100-120 words). Tìm hiểu cấu trúc đoạn văn trước, sau đó chỉ thực hành viết những đoạn nói về mặt lợi của A, mặt hại của B, nguyên nhân của C hay cách giải quyết vấn đề D .... với tiêu chí: Chính xác về mặt ngữ pháp, sử dụng được từ vựng, ý tưởng theo topic đã học trước đó, và đặc biệt chú ý đến độ rõ ràng mạch lạc trong quá trình viết.
- Tiếp theo, đi đến tìm hiểu từng dạng câu hỏi và cấu trúc/ cách làm bài của từng dạng >> Đọc 2 3 bài mẫu trước, sau đó thực hành viết lại bài mẫu rồi mới thực hành với những đề mới, tự mình làm 100%
Bạn hoàn toàn có thể bám theo bài mẫu + đề thi thật và luyện tập theo nhóm đề này luôn: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-luyen-ielts-writing
- Mục tiêu:
Trước khi vào phòng thi, phải sở hữu được một lượng từ vựng theo topic (cực quan trọng với những bạn aim 6.5+)
Đọc nhiều bài mẫu, bắt chước học tập bài mẫu và vận dụng, lên outline nhiều, còn viết chỉ cần tầm 20 bài là quá thuận tay rồi bạn nhé.
Again, học Writing việc được chữa bài cực kỳ quan trọng

💦💦 Cho kỹ năng Speaking
- Tương tự, cứ bắt đầu với từ vựng theo chủ đề trước đã nhé. Cái này có thể dễ dàng tìm trong 1 cuốn sách Speaking: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/ebook-ielts-vocabulary-speaking
- Sau đó luyện với Speaking part 1 trước. Tìm một số cách cấu trúc bài nói, dẫn bài nói cho ngọt...
- Tiếp tục đi đến part 2 và sau đó là part 3. Hai phần này có cách học luôn, bạn có thể tham khảo ở đây facebook.com/286585161523028/posts/1810133609168168/
- Nhưng thực sự rất lưu ý là trong Speaking, phát âm đóng vai trò rất quan trọng nên bạn cần luyện phát âm đúng, có trọng âm >> để người khác hiểu mình nói gì và thích nghe mình nói
- Nếu có partner >> cực tốt vì sẽ có người góp ý + chỉ lỗi sai cho mình
- Nếu không có partner >> ghi âm câu trả lời của mình lại rồi nghe lại đều đặn nhé. Quá trình sửa lỗi cực quan trọng luôn.

Chặng 3️⃣: TĂNG TỐC VÀ VỀ ĐÍCH
Mục tiêu: Luyện đề chuyên sâu nhằm:
- Rút kinh nghiệm học tập từ chính những đề thi sát thật
- Kiểm soát thời gian làm bài tốt
- Ước chừng được band điểm của bản thân > chọn thời gian thi thích hợp
Thời gian: Tuỳ vào cường độ luyện tập và thời gian mình có. Cứ lúc nào để target là đi thi. Trung bình bạn dành 2 tháng cho giai đoạn này là ok

Đối với kỹ năng Writing:
- Nguồn luyện đề Writing task 1: Bạn chỉ cần lựa chọn khoảng 15 đề Writing task 1 đầy đủ các dạng câu hỏi từ bộ đề thi thật năm 2017-2018, mình đã cập nhật ở đây >> In ra và kèm theo 15 tờ answer sheet phần WT1 để thực hành trực tiếp trên tờ answer sheet.
- Nguồn luyện đề Writing task 2: Bạn cứ bám thật sát vào những đề thi cũ vì khả năng gặp những đề tương tự hoặc thậm chí giống hệt khá cao + tổng các đề thi 1 năm cũng đã khá bao quát đủ các topic thường gặp lắm rồi.
Các đề thi này bạn search google là ra nhé, và nên sử dụng đề thi năm 2015 và năm 2016 là ok bạn nhé.
- Cách luyện đề IELTS Writing:
👉 Sắp xếp các đề trên theo chủ đề (Crime, Education....)
👉 Đọc một số bài mẫu hay theo chủ đề để note lại từ vựng + ý tưởng hay theo chủ đề. Cái chính là đọc để học hỏi, bắt chước nên cần đọc kỹ càng nhé.
👉 Sau đó, lên outline cho các câu hỏi thuộc chủ đề đó.
👉 Dành thời gian luyện tập với 1-2 đề/ 1 topic nhỏ như Crime và 4-5 đề/ topic lớn như Education
👉 Bắt buộc là mỗi bài viết xong nên có người đọc lại > Feedback > Thậm chí viết lại nếu chưa tốt.

💦 Đối với kỹ năng Speaking:
- Nguồn luyện đề Speaking: Bám sát bộ đề IELTS Speaking forecast theo từng quý vì chính những bộ đề này được report từ những kỳ thi khá sát thật > tỉ lệ được hỏi những câu hỏi tương tự trong phòng thi sẽ cao hơn
- Cách luyện đề Speaking:
👉 Nên tìm một partner > Học hành cho có động lực và có người feedback cho mình. Anw, nếu không có cũng không sao nhé, mình tự ghi âm câu trả lời của mình và sửa sai, tự khen mình khi có tiến bộ
👉 Cứ thực hành với tất tần tật topics trong Speaking part 1 trước > bạn có bước đệm về từ vựng, ý tưởng và sự tự tin khi nói hơn
👉 Sau đó chuyển sang phần Speaking part 2. Sắp xếp các câu hỏi mà có sự trùng lặp, có thể sử dụng, tái chế ý tưởng ... vào các nhóm để hạn chế sức chuẩn bị. Ví dụ như: a sport man = a famous person = a person you admire
👉 Chuẩn bị bài mẫu cho từng nhóm. Đặc biệt trong bài mẫu, nên cố gắng chú ý về sự logic, mạch lạc, từ vựng và ngữ pháp sử dụng.
👉 Sau đó luyện nói cho đến khi mình cảm thấy tương đối tự tin với đề đó >> Move sang câu hỏi khác.
👉 Cuối cùng, bạn lên youtube search "IELTS Speaking Tests" > chạy video nghe câu hỏi giám khảo đưa ra, cách chuyển câu hỏi ... > Tự trả lời. Bước này nhằm mục đích để tăng phản xạ với câu hỏi tốt hơn, luyện nghe giám khảo đưa ra câu hỏi (Đỡ sợ vào phòng thi không nghe được câu hỏi thì sao :))
👉 Mỗi ngày, tự nói lại những đề mình đã học
Sau đó, khi nào bạn thấy khả năng đã đủ đạt band điểm mục tiêu >> Đi thi và rinh điểm tốt về thôi :)

TÓM LẠI NHỮNG TÀI LIỆU BẠN CẦN
1. Khoá học IELTS Online 4 kỹ năng, gói Overall Plus để có kèm chữa bài Writing Speaking không giới hạn: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/khoa-hoc/khoa-hoc-ielts-4-ky-nang-academic
2. Bộ sách luyện đề dùng cho giải đoạn 2 và 3: https://ielts-thanhloan.com/san-pham/combo-ebook-luyen-ielts

這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。（加拿大法院鏈接在此：https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8）

這位法王的桃色事件，我是幾年前才聽到。但，藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞，我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過，也有一些活佛跟她表白。（這不只是她，其他地方我也聽過不少）

這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。

很多時候發生這種事情，信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇，或者說她們也精神病，或者說她們撒謊。

我不排除有這種可能性，但，多過一位，甚至多位出來指證的時候，我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。

大寶法王的桃色事件，最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒，第二位是香港的女出家人，現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。

對大寶法王信徒來說，這一次的比較麻煩，因為是有孩子的。（關於有孩子的，我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時，就有聽聞）

如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA，這對法王和他的信徒來說，會很尷尬和矛盾，因為做或不做，都死。

你若問我，我覺得『人數是有力量的』，同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來，是不出奇的。

我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒，如果你們真的愛佛教，先別說批判，但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議，你是間接害了佛教。

（下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容，當中有很多細節。）

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?

F. Delay / Prejudice

CONCLUSION



INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).

[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.

[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.

[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.

[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.

BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.

[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.

[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.

[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.

[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.

[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.

[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.

[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.

[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.

[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.

[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.

[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.

[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:

a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;

b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;

c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;

d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.

[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.

[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.

[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.

[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:

I will definitely find a way to meet her

And you

Remember to take care of yourself if something happens

[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.

[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.

[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.

[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.

[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.

[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.

ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:

3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person

(a) is married to another person, or

(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and

(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or

(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.

[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.

B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).

[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.

[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.

C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.

[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.

[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.

[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.

[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.

[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.

[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.

[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.

[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.

[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.

D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:

[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.

[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:

1. Shelter:

(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?

(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?

(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?

2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:

(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?

(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?

(c) What were their feelings toward each other?

(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?

(e) Did they eat their meals together?

(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?

(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?

3. Services:

What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:

(a) preparation of meals;

(b) washing and mending clothes;

(c) shopping;

(d) household maintenance; and

(e) any other domestic services?

4. Social:

(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?

(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?

5. Societal:

What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?

6. Support (economic):

(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?

(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?

(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?

7. Children:

What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?

[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).

[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:

[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.

[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.

[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.

[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:

[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.

[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.

E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:

a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.

b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.

c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.

d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.

e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.

f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.

g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.

[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.

[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.

[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.

[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).

[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.

[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.

[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.

[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.

[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.

[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.

[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.

[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:

[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.

[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.

[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.

[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:

[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.

[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:

[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …

[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.

[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.

F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.

[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.

[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.

[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.

[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.

[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.

[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.

[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.

[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.

CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.

[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.

[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.

“Master Elwood”

Xây gốc tiếng Anh bắt đầu từ đâu? Chắc chắn phải từ đây! 12 thì chính tụi nó là điều cần chinh phục bây giờ~

Cô đã tổng hợp trong video này rồi nè, học thôi nào!

Đây là bài học đầu tiên trong chuỗi Grammar for IELTS, tập trung xây dựng nền tảng, xây gốc hiệu quả. Chuỗi này đồng hành cùng bạn theo chương trình Phổ cập IELTS trên báo VnExpress do IELTS Fighter độc quyền thực hiện nha!

Thì tiếng anh được chia theo thời gian quá khứ, hiện tại và tương lai. Bạn hãy xem công thức các thì trong tiếng Anh dưới đây để hiểu rõ hơn.

Các thì trong tiếng Anh là:

1. Simple Present - Thì Hiện tại đơn
2. Present Continuous - Thì Hiện tại tiếp diễn
3. Present Perfect - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành
4. Present Perfect Continuous - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành tiếp diễn
5. Past Simple - Thì quá khứ đơn
6. Past Continuous - Thì quá khứ tiếp diễn
7. Past Perfect - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành
8. Past Perfect Continuous - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành tiếp diễn
9. Future Present - Thì tương lai đơn
10. Future Continuous - Thì tương lai tiếp diễn
11. Future Perfect - Thì tương lai hoàn thành
12. Future Perfect Continuous - Thì tương lai hoàn thành tiếp diễn

Và thì 13 là Near future tense - Tương lai gần. Phần này cô sẽ nói chi tiết sau nha.

Chúng ta cùng tìm hiểu chi tiết ngay dưới đây nào.

0:00 簡介
1:00 點用呢條片
1:23 Simple present tense 簡單現在式
1:49 Simple past tense 簡單過去式
2:24 Simple future tense 簡單將來式
2:39 Present continuous tense 現在進行式
3:12 Past continuous tense 過去進行式
3:34 Future continuous tense 將來進行式
3:50 Present perfect tense 現在完成式
4:18 Past perfect tense 過去完成式
4:49 Future perfect tense 將來完成式
5:01 Present perfect continuous tense 現在完式進行式
5:19 Past perfect continuous tense 過去完式進行式
5:40 Future perfect continuous tense 將來完式進行式
5:59 注意地方


? Odysee 頻道 ► http://bit.ly/fla-odysee

? MeWe 專頁 ► https://bit.ly/fla-mewe

? MeWe 學英文群組 ► https://bit.ly/fla-mewe-group

?【成人英語再起步】網上課程 ► http://bit.ly/2We1n2Q

? Patreon 月費學習計劃 ► https://bit.ly/3fZcjID

? 哥倫布 12時態懶人包！ ► https://youtu.be/tw9KEQLokjo

? 訂閱電郵通訊，收取學習資源、心得和課程最新消息 ► http://bit.ly/fla-nl

? 收聽 Learning English with Tiffany Podcast
► https://apple.co/2OwMPpK (Apple Podcasts) / https://spoti.fi/3g2KChF (Spotify) / https://bit.ly/3j0uSyd (Google Podcasts)

? 我的相機和其它拍攝器材 ► https://kit.co/finnieslanguagearts/canon-800d-rebel-t7i-youtube-kit

✏️ 歡迎提供字幕 :) ► https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCHkPJ7O9LLjEntwbsgn5TOg

? Twitch ► http://bit.ly/fla-twitch

?? 英文 channel ► http://bit.ly/tiffanysuen-youtube

? 芬尼創業日記 channel ► http://bit.ly/fmkt-yt

感謝各位同學熱烈查詢，暫不設一對一、面授、小學和幼稚園學生為對象課程。


▶️ SUBSCRIBE 訂閱 ► http://bit.ly/flayt-sub
記住要按訂閱按鈕旁邊的小鈴鐺，那麼我們每次推出新片，你就會收到通知了！
It would mean the world to me if you could hit that bell ? beside the SUBSCRIBE button because that way, you get notified EVERY SINGLE TIME a new video goes live.
____________________________________________

▍WATCH MORE 收看更多:

名人英語 ► http://bit.ly/2EUc8QO

時事英語 ► http://bit.ly/2RqrMok

文法懶人包 ► http://bit.ly/2UPUzI4

品牌名學英語 ► http://bit.ly/2qd3mUq

語文知識 ► http://bit.ly/2GzuW8b

今天只學一個字 ► http://bit.ly/2DRQPgE

Word Pairs 怎樣分 ► http://bit.ly/2hS1MCF

____________________________________________

▍FOLLOW ME:

Instagram ► http://bit.ly/fla-ig
Facebook ► http://bit.ly/fla-fb
MeWe ► https://bit.ly/fla-mewe
Blog ► http://bit.ly/fla-medium
Twitter ► http://bit.ly/fla-twitter
Telegram ► https://bit.ly/fla-tg
Pinterest ► http://bit.ly/fla-pinterest

____________________________________________

Free stuff!!! :)
► Use my iHerb Discount Code: ASC7218
► Sign up at AirBnb and get HKD$290 in travel credit: https://www.airbnb.com/c/tiffanys213
► Get a FREE first Uber ride (up to HK$50): https://www.uber.com/invite/tiffanys2213ue
► Get TWO months of free SkillShare premium: https://skl.sh/2IIHhr8
► Get HKD$100 of credit to spend across your next 4 orders at Deliveroo: https://roo.it/tiffanyccs
► Get HKD$100 off your order at NOSH: TIFH437

SƠ ĐỒ TƯ DUY - CÁCH HỌC 12 THÌ TIẾNG ANH NHỚ LÂU VỚI MIND MAP
? Xem bản word online về các thì nhé: https://bit.ly/3gqRPZy

- Làm sao để nhớ các thì trong tiếng Anh lâu hơn? Học không thấy rối mà ứng dụng đúng công thức, cách dùng?

Với hệ thống 12 thì:

1. Simple Present - Thì Hiện tại đơn
2. Present Continuous - Thì Hiện tại tiếp diễn
3. Present Perfect - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành
4. Present Perfect Continuous - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành tiếp diễn
5. Past Simple - Thì quá khứ đơn
6. Past Continuous - Thì quá khứ tiếp diễn
7. Past Perfect - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành
8. Past Perfect Continuous - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành tiếp diễn
9. Future Present - Thì tương lai đơn
10. Future Continuous - Thì tương lai tiếp diễn
11. Future Perfect - Thì tương lai hoàn thành
12. Future Perfect Continuous - Thì tương lai hoàn thành tiếp diễn

Hãy cùng áp dụng sơ đồ tư duy mind map để cùng tạo nên bảng tổng hợp các thì tiếng Anh theo các riêng của bạn.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe IELTS Fighter nhận thông báo video mới nhất để không bỏ lỡ các video bài học thú vị, ngay tại link này nhé:
https://www.youtube.com/IELTSFighter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tham khảo thêm video từ vựng hay khác:
? Khóa học IELTS Writing - Speaking online: http://bit.ly/2FqbOGs
? Chuỗi bài học ngữ pháp chuyên sâu: https://bit.ly/39lov2m
? IELTS Speaking band 7+ |New Sample Test with subtitles: http://bit.ly/2JG8n1y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theo dõi lộ trình học tập vô cùng đầy đủ để các bạn có thể học IELTS Online tại IELTS Fighter qua các bài viết sau:

? Lộ trình tự học 0 lên 5.0: http://bit.ly/2kJtIxy
? Lộ trình từ học 5.0 lên 6.5: http://bit.ly/2lVWV8H

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xem thêm các khóa học theo lộ trình tại đây nhé:

? KHÓA HỌC IELTS MỤC TIÊU 5.0-5.5: http://bit.ly/2LSuWm6
? KHÓA HỌC BỨT PHÁ MỤC TIÊU 6.0-6.5: http://bit.ly/2YwRxuG
? KHÓA HỌC TRỌN GÓI 7.0 IELTS CAM KẾT ĐẦU RA: http://bit.ly/331M26x

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IELTS Fighter - The leading IELTS Training Center in Vietnam
Branch 1: 254 Hoang Van Thai, Thanh Xuan, HN; Tel: 0462 956 422
Branch 2: 44 Tran Quoc Hoan, Cau Giay, HN; Tel: 0466 862 804
Branch 3: 410 Xã Đàn, Đống Đa, Hà Nội; Tel: 0466 868 815
Branch 4: 350, 3/2 Street, 10 District, HCM; Tel: 0866 57 57 29
Branch 5: 94 Cộng Hòa, Tân Bình, HCM; Tel: 02866538585
Branch 6: 85 Điện Biên Phủ, Bình Thạnh, HCM; Tel: 028 6660 4006
Branch 7: 233 Nguyễn Văn Linh, Thanh Khê, Đà Nẵng; Tel: 0236 357 2009
Branch 8: L39.6 khu dân cư Cityland - Phan Văn Trị - Q.Gò Vấp - TPHCM. SĐT: 028 22295577
Branch 9: 376 Nguyễn Văn Cừ - Long Biên - Hà Nội. SĐT: 02466619628
Branch 10: 18 LK6C Nguyễn Văn Lộc - Hà Đông - Hà Nội. SĐT 02466619625
Branch 11: A11 Bà Hom, Phường 13, Quận 6, HCM. SĐT: 028 2244 2323
Branch 12: 254 Tôn Đức Thắng, P. Hòa Minh, Q. Liên Chiểu, Đà Nẵng. SĐT: 0236 629 57 57
Branch 13: 44 Nguyễn Hoàng, (gần bx Mỹ Đình), HN. SĐT 02466593161
Cơ sở 14: 66B Hoàng Diệu 2 Thủ Đức. SĐT: 02822 423 344
Cơ sở 15: 129 Nguyễn Thị Thập, quận 7, HCM
SĐT: 028 22492233
Cơ sở 16: 428 Lạch Tray, Ngô Quyền, Hải Phòng - SĐT: 0225 629 1888
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?Website: https://ielts-fighter.com/
?Fanpage:https://www.facebook.com/ielts.fighter
?Group:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ieltsfighter.support/
?Hotline: 0903 411 666

#12_thì_tiếng_anh #mẹo_nhớ_12-Thì_tiếng_anh #IELTSFIGHTER

CÁC THÌ TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ CÔNG THỨC, VÍ DỤ CHI TIẾT
? Xem bản word online: https://bit.ly/3gqRPZy
? Xem trọn bộ khóa học: http://bit.ly/bogrammarforielts

- Tổng hợp các thì trong tiếng Anh với công thức, cách dùng, dấu hiệu nhận biết, bài tập các thì chi tiết cho bạn thực hành ghi nhớ. Cùng xem nhé!

Đây là bài học đầu tiên trong chuỗi Grammar for IELTS, tập trung xây dựng nền tảng, xây gốc hiệu quả.

Thì tiếng anh được chia theo thời gian quá khứ, hiện tại và tương lai. Bạn hãy xem công thức các thì trong tiếng Anh dưới đây để hiểu rõ hơn.

Các thì trong tiếng Anh là:

1. Simple Present - Thì Hiện tại đơn
2. Present Continuous - Thì Hiện tại tiếp diễn
3. Present Perfect - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành
4. Present Perfect Continuous - Thì hiện tại hoàn thành tiếp diễn
5. Past Simple - Thì quá khứ đơn
6. Past Continuous - Thì quá khứ tiếp diễn
7. Past Perfect - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành
8. Past Perfect Continuous - Thì quá khứ hoàn thành tiếp diễn
9. Future Present - Thì tương lai đơn
10. Future Continuous - Thì tương lai tiếp diễn
11. Future Perfect - Thì tương lai hoàn thành
12. Future Perfect Continuous - Thì tương lai hoàn thành tiếp diễn

Và thì 13 là Near future tense - Tương lai gần. Phần này cô sẽ nói chi tiết sau nha.

Chúng ta cùng tìm hiểu chi tiết ngay dưới đây cùng Ms.Quỳnh nào.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe IELTS Fighter nhận thông báo video mới nhất để không bỏ lỡ các video bài học thú vị, ngay tại link này nhé:
https://www.youtube.com/IELTSFighter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tham khảo thêm video từ vựng hay khác:
? Khóa học IELTS Writing - Speaking online: http://bit.ly/2FqbOGs
? Chuỗi bài học ngữ pháp chuyên sâu: https://bit.ly/39lov2m
? IELTS Speaking band 7+ |New Sample Test with subtitles: http://bit.ly/2JG8n1y
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theo dõi lộ trình học tập vô cùng đầy đủ để các bạn có thể học IELTS Online tại IELTS Fighter qua các bài viết sau:

? Lộ trình tự học 0 lên 5.0: http://bit.ly/2kJtIxy
? Lộ trình từ học 5.0 lên 6.5: http://bit.ly/2lVWV8H

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xem thêm các khóa học theo lộ trình tại đây nhé:

? KHÓA HỌC IELTS MỤC TIÊU 5.0-5.5: http://bit.ly/2LSuWm6
? KHÓA HỌC BỨT PHÁ MỤC TIÊU 6.0-6.5: http://bit.ly/2YwRxuG
? KHÓA HỌC TRỌN GÓI 7.0 IELTS CAM KẾT ĐẦU RA: http://bit.ly/331M26x

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IELTS Fighter - The leading IELTS Training Center in Vietnam
Branch 1: 254 Hoang Van Thai, Thanh Xuan, HN; Tel: 0462 956 422
Branch 2: 44 Tran Quoc Hoan, Cau Giay, HN; Tel: 0466 862 804
Branch 3: 410 Xã Đàn, Đống Đa, Hà Nội; Tel: 0466 868 815
Branch 4: 350, 3/2 Street, 10 District, HCM; Tel: 0866 57 57 29
Branch 5: 94 Cộng Hòa, Tân Bình, HCM; Tel: 02866538585
Branch 6: 85 Điện Biên Phủ, Bình Thạnh, HCM; Tel: 028 6660 4006
Branch 7: 233 Nguyễn Văn Linh, Thanh Khê, Đà Nẵng; Tel: 0236 357 2009
Branch 8: L39.6 khu dân cư Cityland - Phan Văn Trị - Q.Gò Vấp - TPHCM. SĐT: 028 22295577
Branch 9: 376 Nguyễn Văn Cừ - Long Biên - Hà Nội. SĐT: 02466619628
Branch 10: 18 LK6C Nguyễn Văn Lộc - Hà Đông - Hà Nội. SĐT 02466619625
Branch 11: A11 Bà Hom, Phường 13, Quận 6, HCM. SĐT: 028 2244 2323
Branch 12: 254 Tôn Đức Thắng, P. Hòa Minh, Q. Liên Chiểu, Đà Nẵng. SĐT: 0236 629 57 57
Branch 13: 44 Nguyễn Hoàng, (gần bx Mỹ Đình), HN. SĐT 02466593161
Cơ sở 14: 66B Hoàng Diệu 2 Thủ Đức. SĐT: 02822 423 344
Cơ sở 15: 129 Nguyễn Thị Thập, quận 7, HCM
SĐT: 028 22492233
Cơ sở 16: 428 Lạch Tray, Ngô Quyền, Hải Phòng - SĐT: 0225 629 1888
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?Website: https://ielts-fighter.com/
?Fanpage:https://www.facebook.com/ielts.fighter
?Group:https://www.facebook.com/groups/ieltsfighter.support/
?Hotline: 0903 411 666

#các_thì_tiếng_anh #12_thì_tiếng_anh #IELTSFIGHTER